Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

Fuzzy power ow solutions with reactive limits and multiple uncertainties

P.R. Bijwe , M. Hanmandlu, V.N. Pande
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India Received 11 November 2004; received in revised form 16 December 2004; accepted 25 May 2005

Abstract Importance of simultaneous modeling of diverse sources of non-statistical uncertainty in power system analysis and optimization is being increasingly realized. Keeping this in view, an attempt is made to obtain fuzzy power ow solution considering reactive power limit violations at voltage controlled buses, uncertainties in voltage-dependent load models, load forecast and system parameters. Corresponding to the given range of uncertain variables, a range of dependent variables and functions is provided by the proposed approach. Results of two sample test systems demonstrate utility of this approach. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Power ow; Fuzzy sets; Load models; Parameter uncertainty

1. Introduction The power ow method is an important tool used by power system analysts for planning and operation. Using this tool, one can obtain the steady state of the system for a specied set of load and generation values. The power ow problem is formulated as a set of non-linear algebraic equations that must be solved simultaneously. In conventional power ow, also called deterministic power ow (DPF), the system condition represents a snapshot in time and provides bus voltages and line ows in response to a set of deterministic (crisp) values for each input variable. Uncertainty in the system data must be addressed in any analysis. Unfortunately, this problem is acute in power systems because of the geographical spread, size, and complexity of power systems. Hence, even after a century of experience, accurate load model identication is still considered a challenge in power system. Moreover, the analyst is never sure of the exact load/generation specications for a power ow study. In spite of this difculty in load modelling, it is comparatively easy to give a reasonably accurate range of load

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 26591046; fax: +91 11 26581606. E-mail address: prbijwe@ee.iitd.ac.in (P.R. Bijwe).

model coefcients. The range of nominal real and reactive loads at a bus is also relatively easy to specify. In the absence of appropriate methods for modeling uncertainty, majority of power ow algorithms deal with crisp loads/generations and load model coefcients. In order to ensure a range of solutions in the uncertain domain, a large number of crisp power ow simulations needs to be performed spanning the entire data. Obviously, this is a brute force approach and is very time consuming. Two types of approaches have been reported in the literature for dealing with uncertainties. The rst one is a probabilistic power ow model in which loads/generations are random variables [1]. The output of such a power ow, i.e., voltages and ows, is also random. The second approach deals with modeling of nonstatistical type of uncertainty, which we usually come across in power ow problems. In this approach, the vague or imprecise information is represented by a fuzzy number. Loads/generations in such an approach are represented using possibility distributions. The resulting power ow output variables like voltages and ows also have possibility distributions. A fuzzy power ow (FPF), meant for taking care of nonprobabilistic load uncertainties, was introduced by Miranda

0378-7796/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2005.05.002

146

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

and Saraiva [2] to model real power demand uncertainty in cost optimization of real power generation. They used DC power ow model and crisp update values computed at the mid-point of fuzzy load distribution. Vlachogiannis [3] proposed an algorithm in which the rule-base process logic minimizes the fuzzy real and reactive power mismatches at each node of a system. Kenarangui and Sei [4], considered fuzziness not only in power generation and loads but also in the availability of generating units. Wang and Alvarado [5] proposed an interval arithmetic-based approach for solving power ow problem with uncertain loads. Dimitrovski and Tomsovic [6] have developed a methodology for a boundary power ow (BPF) using boundary values of the input variables. Several crisp power ow solutions are required in the solution process. Unlike many other fuzzy power ows, this is truly a non-linear approach. It may be noted that BPF provides only the extreme or boundary values of states or output variables whereas FPF provides possibility distribution of these variables, which is intuitively more satisfying. Since boundary values of a fuzzy variable have zero membership function (indicating boundary between possible and not possible) one may not always be interested in these values. Instead one may wish to have state and output variables values upto a certain cut of the possibility distribution. This -cut signies a practical possibility/threshold of interest. In FPF, a triangular or trapezoidal possibility distribution of variables could be of interest. In a triangular distribution, central value of the output variable is obtained with central values of input variables. The other breakpoints could correspond to zero or a desired -cut membership of these variables. A trapezoidal distribution is much more general representation of a fuzzy variable. This requires determination of values of variables corresponding to two inner breakpoints with unity membership function (most likely values) and two outer breakpoints with zero or some pre-specied -cut value of membership function. Obviously, the more the number of breakpoints of a fuzzy variable, the more expensive is the evaluation of these breakpoints. Owing to the mathematical approximations used in calculations, simplied modeling assumptions, occasional gross human errors and weather effects, parameter values used in analysis cause errors. It has been observed that these errors could be of the order of 5% of nominal values, which may be of great concern in real time security analysis of the system [7]. In boundary power ow [6], reactive limit violations at PV buses have not been considered. Moreover, literature survey reveals that to the best of authors knowledge, simultaneous modeling of uncertainty in voltage-dependent load models, network parameters and load forecast has not been attempted so far. Alsac et al. [8] have advocated that all sources of uncertainty are important and must be considered together in the context of generalized state estimation. This is equally true in the case of power ow. In view of the above, the motivation in this paper is to develop a fuzzy power ow

algorithm that can handle reactive limits at PV buses and also simultaneous uncertainties in loads and system parameters.

2. Mathematical modeling In order to understand fuzzy power ow better, the deterministic and boundary power ow methods are briey explained. 2.1. Deterministic/crisp power ow In this approach, the following set of non-linear equations is solved for the unknown state vector X for a given (crisp) function vector Y. Y = g(X) (1)

In the NewtonRaphson power ow approach, the above equations are linearized and solved iteratively as follows: X=K Y where K = J1 (2)

and J is the Jacobian matrix evaluated at latest voltages; Y = Ysp Yc ; Ysp the specied input vector; Yc the function vector Y evaluated at latest voltages; X is the state update vector. For the convergence of X from (2) within the pre-specied tolerance, iterations must be continued. With the converged X, output vector Z can be determined as follows: Z = h(X) where Z includes line ows, reactive power at PV buses. 2.2. Boundary power ow In this approach [6], for a given range of input variables extreme or boundary values of state variables and output variables are obtained. The BPF process begins with a DPF solution, which yields a crisp set of state variables, X0 from a crisp input set Ysp , satisfying, Yc = g(X0 ) Linearizing (1) around X0 , we obtain: X = X0 + K(Ysp Yc ) (5) (4) (3)

where Yc is the vector evaluated with latest crisp estimates of voltages. It is a fuzzy vector only when parameters are fuzzy (implementation details of this are explained in Section 2.3.3). The Jacobian inverse K is evaluated at latest crisp estimates of voltages. In order to evaluate boundary value of ith state variable, we have from (5): Xi = X0i +
j

Kij (Yspj Ycj )

(6)

where i set of state variables and j set of input specications.

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

147

For Yspj , only appropriate extreme/boundary values are considered depending on whether a minimum or maximum value of Xi is desired. It is easy to understand that this choice depends on the sign of Kij term. If Xi min is desired, then Yspj = Yspj min , if Kij is positive and Yspj = Yspj max , if Kij is negative. Similarly if Xi max is desired, then Yspj = Yspj max , if Kij is positive and Yspj = Yspj min , if Kij is negative. From this selection procedure, it is clear that although our interest is only in the boundary values of all state variables, each boundary value of a state has to be evaluated separately. Moreover, while evaluating boundary state variable Xi , the specic choice of boundary values of input specications Yspi gives rise to a separate set of state variables Xbi given by: Xbi = Xbi0 + Kbi (Yspi Yci ) (7)

point values of state variables, the state vectors may be the same. Evaluation of breakpoints of fuzzy distribution of output variable can be done as per the procedure detailed above using Eq. (8). 2.3.1. Handling Qlimit violations at PV buses Reactive power limits are routinely handled in crisp power ow (DPF). These limit violations and associated bus type switching are also essential while evaluating fuzzy values of state variables. Hence, Qlimit violation is checked for every Xbi and in case of violation, necessary changes are made both in the Jacobian and mismatch vector to result in the modied set of equations to be solved. However, in this case Yspi is specied to be crisp at violated reactive limit. As usual, the possibility of backing off from limits must be checked in the subsequent iterations. 2.3.2. Handling voltage-dependent load model uncertainty Practical power system loads exhibit voltage-dependent behavior, which can be modeled as in [9] using exponential model (10a) and (10b) or ZIP model (11a) and (11b). The former is more commonly used due to integrated effects of different components being specied simply through appropriate values of np, nq. ZIP model on the other hand would require specications of three coefcients each for Pi , Qi . However, these coefcients are very difcult to get in practice. Pi = PiN Qi = QiN Vi ViN Vi ViN
np

Since each vector in the solution space of X must satisfy (1), iterations continue until convergence for the boundary points Xbi is achieved. The function vector Yci is re-evaluated with Xbi . The matrix Kbi is also evaluated using this vector. It may be noted here that unlike in DPF, the boundary values of output variables cannot be obtained directly from boundary values of X. A separate solution has to be sought for this. The evaluation of output variables Z must proceed on similar lines as explained below. Z = Z0 + L(Ysp Yc ) (8)

where L = S K and S is the Jacobian of Z evaluated at latest voltages. If Zi min is desired, then Yspj = Yspj min , if Lij is positive and Yspj = Yspj max , if Lij is negative. Similarly, if Zi max is desired, then Yspj = Yspj max , if Lij is positive and Yspj = Yspj min , if Lij is negative. 2.3. Fuzzy power ow The breakpoints of the fuzzy state variable possibility distribution can be obtained by extending boundary value approach explained in the last section. Eq. (9) is the same as Eq. (6) except that superscript m refers to the breakpoint of interest.
m m Xi = X0 i+ j

(10a)
nq

(10b) (11a) (11b)

Pi = PiN (ai Vi2 + bi Vi + ci ) Qi = QiN (di Vi2 + ei Vi + fi )

Kij (Yspj Ycj )

(9)

For determining mth breakpoint value, signs of the elements of row corresponding to the state variable desired need to be considered. Depending on the signs of these Kij elements, appropriate breakpoint values of input vector are chosen, e.g., for the rst (last) breakpoint value of Xi , if the sign of Kij is positive/negative, then we choose rst/last (last/rst) breakpoint value of input vector. For the second (third) breakpoint value of Xi , if the sign of Kij is positive/negative, then we choose second/third (third/second) breakpoint value of input vector. It is important to note that for every breakpoint value of the state variable, we have an associated state vector. As a special case for many break-

where PiN , QiN are the nominal values of Pi , Qi at nominal voltage ViN . ai , bi , ci and di , ei , fi are the coefcients of constant impedance, constant current and constant power terms in real and reactive power expressions, respectively. Eqs. (10a) and (10b) indicate that injections at the load buses are now variable unlike constant P, Q load models. As mentioned earlier though, it is extremely difcult to get exact values for np, nq it is easy to get a range of condence for them. Using this range, we get fuzzy values for Pi , Qi in all iterations depending on the current values of Vi . It is also possible to model uncertainty in both PiN , QiN as well as in np, nq simultaneously. Again, this will result in variable fuzzy values of injections Pi , Qi , i.e., Yspi in every iteration depending on the current values of Vi . The computational scheme of FPF in this case remains the same as described earlier.

148

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

2.3.3. Handling system parameter uncertainties Uncertainty in parameter values can arise due to imprecise data used in modeling inductance, capacitance calculation and ageing of system components. Moreover, the tap and shunt values available to an analyst may be erroneous. In practice, one can never get perfect data. These data errors can sometimes result in very inaccurate solutions. Although exact data is almost impossible to specify, it is quite easy to specify a good range of values in which analyst/operator has condence. One can provide a complete trapezoidal possibility distribution of system parameters. This uncertainty gives rise to fuzziness in bus power calculations, which correspond to the breakpoint values of bus real and reactive powers due to parameter uncertainty. If the specied power is crisp, the fuzzy values of state variables will be due to fuzzy nature of the calculated powers. As usual, depending on which breakpoint value of state variable is sought and the signs of sensitivity matrix elements of interest, the breakpoint values of calculated powers will be chosen. It is easy to extend this procedure to cases involving all uncertainties mentioned earlier. Even in the case of all uncertainties treated simultaneously, there will be a range of values for each mismatch vector element. If only load forecast uncertainty is considered for constant P, Q loads, in (5), Ysp becomes fuzzy, whereas Yc is crisp. Since this is a special case of voltage dependent loads given by (10) and (11), representation of the input variables is depicted in Fig. 1. If only load model uncertainty is considered, i.e., PiN , QiN being crisp, representation of the input variables is similar to that in Fig. 1. Even in this case, Yc is crisp. If both load forecast and load model uncertainties are considered together, input vector Ysp is fuzzy and Yc is still crisp. If system parameter uncertainties are present, Yc (Pi cal , Qi cal ) will have a range of values, whereas input vector Ysp will be crisp. The fuzziness in Yc adopts the form similar to the one shown in Fig. 1. If all the above uncertainties exist together, the input vectors Ysp and calculated function vector Yc are both fuzzy and the mismatch vector involves fuzzy subtraction rule. The procedure for determination of breakpoints of state variables described in Section 2.3 remains the same except that depending on the signs of the relevant matrix elements the selection of breakpoint values of mismatch vector is required instead of only the input vector.

2.3.4. Computational considerations It needs to be emphasized that the DPF and FPF are fundamentally different and have distinct applications. Hence, comparison of computational efciency of the two should only be undertaken from the point of view of understanding. As explained earlier FPF will be computationally very expensive if complete convergence of every breakpoint of each state variable is required. Every breakpoint of a state variable corresponds to a specic input variable vector. In general, separate variable Jacobians are required in all these calculations. In the variable Jacobian approach, it has been observed that although the values of Jacobian elements change during iterative process their signs rarely do. Since the input vector selection in FPF depends only on signs of the elements and not their values, constant Jacobian approaches can be used. These will also make the whole process computationally viable because of their higher computational efciency. Partial matrix refactorization or compensation approaches could be used for handling reactive power limit violations at PV buses. If we examine the nature of computations in the rst iteration of FPF where the same Jacobian is used for all state and output variable calculations, it can be seen that separate row column multiplications are involved in each update variable computation. Hence, this iteration of FPF is equivalent to four repeat solutions (two for BPF) with different right hand side mismatch vectors. It is also important to note that over-convergence in FPF is not required in view of the fact that the data itself is uncertain. Hence, one or two iterations should generally sufce. Moreover, it will be seen from the results that a large number of state vectors is same particularly for similar breakpoints of state or output variables. 2.3.5. Applications of fuzzy power ow In general, one can obtain a possibility distribution of state and/or output variables (voltages, angles, line ows, losses) for a given range of input variables. Individual or simultaneous uncertainties in voltage-dependent loads and parameters can also be handled. FPF is, however, extremely useful if only one or a few fuzzy variable calculations, e.g., real, reactive power loss, ows on few specic lines, voltages at some buses are of interest. The crisp power ow will yield information as to which variables are of concern.

3. Results In order to demonstrate the utility of the proposed algorithm, power ow solutions for 6-bus (Appendix A) and modied IEEE 30-bus test systems [10] are presented under different uncertainties. In order to save space, 6-bus system results are given in detail, whereas 30-bus system results are given only with all uncertainties. The ranges of various types of uncertainties are given in Appendix B. All results have been obtained with normal reactive limits.

Fig. 1. Fuzzy load forecast representation.

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152 Table 1 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for 6-bus test system with uncertain nominal loads Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.05 1.1 0.9437 0.9314 0.9158 0.9144 0 4.3006 13.0838 9.8274 12.7043 12.3761 1.05 1.0594 0.9092 0.8995 0.8721 0.8758 V2 1.05 1.0837 0.9286 0.9175 0.8972 0.8976 V3 1.05 1.1 0.9536 0.9400 0.9271 0.9242 V4 1.05 1.1 0.9631 0.9482 0.9379 0.9337 ( ) 1 0 9.1171 16.5064 12.2976 17.0932 15.5809 2 0 6.7595 14.7187 11.0230 14.8075 13.9173 3 0 1.6601 11.5829 8.6747 10.7013 10.9130 4

149

0 0.8822 10.135 7.5515 8.7728 9.4995

Table 2 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for 6-bus test system with uncertain voltage-dependent load model Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.05 1.1 0.9541 0.9410 0.9292 0.9254 0 2.5698 11.8002 8.9175 11.1243 11.3821 1.05 1.1 0.9531 0.9401 0.9279 0.9243 V2 1.05 1.1 0.9536 0.9406 0.9286 0.9248 V3 1.05 1.1 0.9546 0.9415 0.9298 0.9259 V4 1.05 1.1 0.9551 0.9420 0.9304 0.9264 ( ) 1 0 2.7667 11.9631 9.0380 11.3275 11.5100 2 0 2.6669 11.8814 8.9776 11.2257 11.4459 3 0 2.4752 11.719 8.8577 11.023 11.318 4 0 2.3831 11.6391 8.7982 10.9226 11.2552

Table 3 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for 6-bus test system with uncertain nominal loads and voltage-dependent load model simultaneously Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.05 1.1 0.9541 0.9410 0.9292 0.9254 0 2.5698 11.8002 8.9175 11.1243 11.3821 1.05 1.1 0.9372 0.9264 0.9098 0.9083 V2 1.05 1.1 0.9459 0.9339 0.9197 0.9170 V3 1.05 1.1 0.9621 0.9479 0.9384 0.9334 V4 1.05 1.1 0.9698 0.9544 0.9472 0.9411 ( ) 1 0 7.6987 14.7769 11.2387 15.1234 14.3220 2 0 5.0825 13.2739 10.0672 13.1038 12.8353 3 0 0.1418 10.3497 7.7854 9.1769 9.9563 4 0 2.2318 8.9174 6.6676 7.2546 8.5533

3.1. 6-Bus system results Results are obtained with 10 and 5% variation in nominal loads for outer and inner breakpoints, respectively. A large number of power ows required in FPF is a major concern for

a large size practical system. However, the values obtained at the end of one iteration of FPF are quite close to the nal converged solutions. Hence, one iteration of FPF may sufce in many situations where Qlimit violations are not encountered. In the iterative solution process, every breakpoint value of

Table 4 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for 6-bus test system with uncertain line parameters Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.05 1.1 0.9437 0.9314 0.9158 0.9144 0 4.3006 13.0838 9.8274 12.7043 12.3761 1.05 1.1 0.9259 0.9133 0.9016 0.8982 V2 1.05 1.1 0.9369 0.9244 0.9104 0.9082 V3 1.05 1.1 0.9511 0.9378 0.9215 0.9201 V4 1.05 1.1 0.9618 0.9469 0.9296 0.9281 ( ) 1 0 8.1249 15.7231 12.0262 15.6538 14.6721 2 0 5.7525 14.0826 10.6648 13.8211 13.2408 3 0 2.9217 12.1530 9.0445 11.655 11.573 4 0 0.9387 10.8517 7.9462 10.1332 10.4260

150

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

Table 5 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for 6-bus test system with uncertain nominal loads, voltage-dependent load model and line parameters simultaneously Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.05 1.1 0.9541 0.9410 0.9292 0.9254 0 2.5698 11.8002 8.9175 11.1243 11.3821 1.05 1.1 0.9256 0.9151 0.8989 0.8969 V2 1.05 1.1 0.9416 0.9297 0.9157 0.9129 V3 1.05 1.1 0.9634 0.9490 0.9388 0.9340 V4 1.05 1.1 0.9730 0.9571 0.9483 0.9426 ( ) 1 0 9.6538 16.4257 12.6291 16.9155 15.8357 2 0 5.7630 13.8662 10.5648 13.7426 13.3721 3 0 0.4576 10.0488 7.5144 8.7909 9.7054 4 0 3.7462 8.1723 6.0059 6.2243 7.9065

Table 6 Fuzzy distribution of real power ow on sample lines of 6-bus system Line no. Crisp power ow (p.u.) Fuzzy distribution PFL1 (p.u.) 2 (14) 6 (23) 0.5085 0.1843 0.4060 0.1449 PFL2 (p.u.) 0.4563 0.1646 PFL3 (p.u.) 0.5628 0.2040 PFL4 (p.u.) 0.6192 0.2238

state variable is associated with a specic vector. A very interesting feature of FPF was noticed, i.e., out of the total number of states to be determined, the vectors corresponding to many states are same, and hence one needs to run fewer number of power ows. Since this possibility is known in the very rst iteration of FPF, it can lead to considerable computational savings. 3.1.1. Constant P, Q load forecast uncertainty Results with uncertainty in forecast of constant P, Q type loads are shown in Table 1. Reactive limits have been chosen deliberately in such a way that violations occur only for some breakpoint values because of uncertainty. There were no limit violations at the starting crisp power ow stage. All 1st and 2nd breakpoint values encounter Q limit violations whereas others encounter none. Obviously, one to two more iterations are required for convergence in the former case. The breakpoint values of the states also depend on the extent of violations. 3.1.2. Voltage-dependent load model uncertainty Table 2 shows results of fuzzy power ow with uncertainty present only in voltage-dependent load model exponents np, nq. One can witness from Table, overall better voltages and lesser angles due to soft nature of loads than those due to constant P, Q loads. The solution converges in two to three iterations in each case. 3.1.3. Voltage-dependent load model and load forecast uncertainties Table 3 shows results of fuzzy power ow with combined load forecast uncertainty (PiN , QiN ) as well as that in load model exponents np, nq. It can be seen that the fuzzy breakpoint values are widely separated than those in Section 3.1.1 due to increased uncertainty.

3.1.4. Parameter value uncertainty Table 4 shows results of fuzzy power ow with uncertainty only in parameter values. For this power ow solution, 5 and 2% variations in parameter values are considered for outer and inner breakpoints, respectively. It can be seen from the table that this type of uncertainty has a signicant effect on the range of fuzzy-dependent variables. Hence, it is important to model this type of uncertainty.

3.1.5. Combined uncertainties in load model, load forecast and system parameters Results of FPF with uncertainties in load forecast (PiN , QiN ), load model exponents np, nq and system parameters are shown in Table 5. It can be seen that the range of fuzzy breakpoint values of state variables is more than that with individual uncertainties. Here, three to four iterations are required for convergence of each breakpoint.

3.1.6. Fuzzy distribution of output variables Table 6 depicts fuzzy distribution (breakpoint values) of real line ows on a few sample lines, respectively, while Table 7 gives distribution of real power loss due to fuzziness in the loads. The variations in loads are 10 and 5% for outer and inner breakpoints, respectively.

Table 7 Fuzzy distribution of real power loss for 6-bus system Crisp Ploss (p.u.) Fuzzy distribution (p.u.) PL1 PL2 PL3 PL4 0.1060 0.0815 0.0936 0.1189 0.1323

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152

151

Table 8 Crisp and fuzzy power ow solutions for IEEE 30-bus system with uncertain nominal loads, voltage-dependent load model and line parameters simultaneously Bus no. Crisp solution |V| (p.u.) ( ) Fuzzy power ow solution |V| (p.u.) V1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1.06 1.045 1.0184 1.0092 1.01 1.0076 1.0007 1.01 1.0372 1.0205 1.082 1.0484 1.071 1.0306 1.0241 1.0291 1.0175 1.0103 1.0054 1.0084 1.0078 1.0084 1.0088 0.997 1.0009 0.9834 1.0118 1.0037 0.9922 0.981 0 5.5862 8.054 9.724 14.4835 11.4484 13.2237 12.2451 14.6604 16.011 14.6604 15.6427 15.6427 16.5398 16.5414 16.0793 16.2493 17.0813 17.2017 16.9628 16.4684 16.4496 16.8035 16.7922 16.4796 16.9054 16.0165 12.0725 17.2472 18.1244 1.06 1.045 1.011 0.9923 1.01 0.9959 0.9920 1.01 1.0224 1.0005 1.082 1.0337 1.071 1.0117 1.0033 1.0101 0.9970 0.9870 0.9816 0.9851 0.9854 0.9860 0.9854 0.9227 0.9775 0.9575 0.9917 0.9920 0.9681 0.9556 V2 1.06 1.045 1.0126 1.0033 1.01 1.0034 0.9975 1.01 1.0317 1.0129 1.0820 1.0429 1.071 1.0234 1.0161 1.0219 1.0096 1.0013 0.9962 0.9994 0.9991 0.9997 0.9997 0.9875 0.9918 0.9732 1.0041 0.9995 0.9828 0.9709 V3 1.06 1.045 1.0226 1.0135 1.01 1.0107 1.0034 1.01 1.0424 1.0280 1.082 1.0538 1.071 1.0376 1.0318 1.0361 1.0252 1.0191 1.0144 1.0171 0.0162 1.0168 1.0176 1.0062 1.0010 0.9912 1.0182 1.0071 1.0058 0.9903 V4 1.06 1.045 1.0270 1.0182 1.01 1.0142 1.0079 1.01 1.0485 1.0368 1.082 1.0601 1.071 1.0458 1.0409 1.0443 1.0341 1.0293 1.0248 1.0272 1.0262 1.0269 1.0279 1.0171 1.0205 1.0053 1.0291 1.0109 1.0128 1.0029 ( ) 1 0 8.9998 12.9003 15.3758 20.3119 17.6751 19.3122 18.6050 22.0906 23.7949 22.0906 23.1703 23.1703 24.2735 24.3860 23.7236 23.9619 25.0948 25.2226 24.8959 24.2980 24.3201 24.7695 24.8012 24.4932 25.0960 23.8123 18.5728 25.3843 26.3224 2 0 6.8548 9.8596 11.8453 16.7518 13.8067 15.5865 14.6462 17.4936 19.0100 17.4936 18.5003 18.5003 19.5220 19.5331 18.9975 19.2229 20.1501 20.2761 20.0136 19.5226 19.4917 19.8639 19.8869 19.5440 20.0502 18.9961 14.5408 20.3666 21.2947 3 0 4.5246 6.5415 7.9375 12.5103 8.9852 11.1776 10.2030 12.2455 13.4401 12.2455 13.1893 13.1893 13.9686 13.9339 13.5654 13.6605 14.4267 14.5385 14.3107 13.6144 13.8045 14.1555 14.1202 13.8425 14.1900 13.4541 9.9835 14.5572 15.3713 4 0 3.3694 4.8902 5.9831 10.3351 6.3157 8.8797 7.9418 9.5708 9.3458 9.5708 9.1906 9.1906 11.1185 11.0455 9.4572 9.5503 11.4763 11.5658 10.0449 10.8901 10.8732 11.2160 11.1412 10.9071 11.1678 10.6072 6.6864 11.5606 12.3135

Table 9 Fuzzy distribution of real power ow on sample lines of IEEE 30-bus system Line no. Crisp power ow (p.u.) Fuzzy ow distribution PFL1 (p.u.) 2 (13) 8 (57) 0.8305 0.1399 0.7386 0.2070 PFL2 (p.u.) 0.7835 0.1735 PFL3 (p.u.) 0.8778 0.1062 PFL4 (p.u.) 0.9254 0.0724

3.2. Results of IEEE 30-bus system Results for IEEE 30-bus test system [10] with uncertainties in nominal loads, load models and in parameter values are given in Table 8. The variations in loads are 10 and 5% for outer and inner breakpoints, respectively. For incorporating uncertainty in the load model, the ranges of real and reactive power exponents considered are 1.21.31.51.6 and 1.61.71.92.0, respectively. The variations in parameter values are taken to be 5 and 2% for outer and inner breakpoints, respectively. Tables 9 and 10 depict fuzzy distribution (breakpoint values) of line ows on a few sample lines and real power loss due to the fuzziness in the loads, respectively. It was observed that constant Jacobian approach also gives the same results but with extra iterations.

The results indicate that for a particular breakpoint of a variable of interest, the FPF nds out a specic mismatch vector from input variable vector and evaluated function vector in case of uncertainty in parameters, in the universe of discourse dened by the range of uncertainty in these variables.
Table 10 Fuzzy distribution of real power loss for IEEE 30-bus system Crisp Ploss (p.u.) Fuzzy distribution (p.u.) PFL1 PFL2 PFL3 PFL4 0.1789 0.1386 0.1587 0.1993 0.2199

152

P.R. Bijwe et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 76 (2005) 145152 Table A3 Reactive power limits Bus no Qg max p.u. Qg min (p.u.) 2 0.4 0.2

4. Conclusion In this paper, a fuzzy power ow algorithm is presented. This algorithm can handle reactive limits at voltage controlled buses, along with diverse sources of non-statistical uncertainties associated with load forecast, load model, and network parameters. This capability allows an analyst to specify a range of uncertain data rather than crisp data in which an operator/analyst does not have complete condence. Results of two sample test systems demonstrate the utility of the proposed method to deal with various uncertainties. Appendix A A.1. 6-Bus test system data Tables A1A3.
Table A1 Line data No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Table A2 Bus data No 1a 2b 3 4 5 6
a b

Appendix B Table B1.

Table B1 Voltage-dependent load model exponent values [9] for 6-bus system Bus no 5 3 np range 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 nq range 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0

References
From bus 1 1 4 6 5 2 4 To bus 6 4 6 5 2 3 3 Impedance (pu.) 0.123 + j0.518 0.08 + j0.37 0.097 + j0.407 0 + j0.3 0.282 + j0.64 0.723 + j1.05 0 + j0.133 Tap (p.u.) 0.978 0.969 [1] B. Borkowska, Probabilistic power ow, IEEE Trans. Power Apparatus Syst. PAS-93 (May) (1974) 752759. [2] V. Miranda, J.T. Saraiva, Fuzzy modeling of power system optimal power ow, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 7 (May (2)) (1992) 843 849. [3] J.G. Vlachogiannis, Fuzzy logic applications in power ow studies, Proc. IEE Pt. C 148 (1) (2001) 3440. [4] R. Kenarangui, A. Sei, Fuzzy power ow analysis, Int. J. Electric Power Syst. Res. (29) (1994) 105109. [5] Z. Wang, F.L. Alvarado, Interval arithmetic in power ow analysis, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 7 (August (3)) (1992) 1341 1349. [6] A. Dimitrovski, K. Tomsovic, Boundary power ow solutions, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 19 (February (1)) (2004) 348355. [7] Atif S. Debs, Modern Power System Control and Operation, Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1988. [8] O. Alsac, N. Vempati, B. Stott, A. Monticelli, Generalized state estimation, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 13 (August (3)) (1998) 1069 1075. [9] P. Kundur, Power System Stability and Control, Mc-Graw Hill, New York, 1994. [10] http://www.ee.washington.edu/research/pstca/.

V (p.u.) 1.05 1.1 Slack bus. PV bus.

Pg (p.u.) 0.5

Qg (p.u.) 0

Pl (p.u.) 0 0.55 0 0.3 0.5

Ql (p.u.) 0 0.13 0 0.18 0.05